3 ms·

> What you're positing—that as various areas of the planet warm and cool, there will be perfect balance in what arable land we lose and gain I am not, and neve

> What you're positing—that as various areas of the planet warm and cool, there will be perfect balance in what arable land we lose and gain I am not, and never did propose that. I am arguing that there is no model that I am aware of that predicts a such dramatic NET reduction in arable area that society collapses. If you know of such models, now would be a good time to make me one of the lucky 10k :-) The only ones I am aware of are those predicting specific collapse on specific populations, most of which are tiny, percentage-wise. > What it looks like to me is that you are either handwaving the decades (or more!) of turmoil, hardship, and loss of life for people in the areas that will be most affected by this, No, I am not. Respectfully, you appear to be ascribing intentions to my argument that I don't have. I quoted the bit I was responding to specifically! >>> I can't help but think of all the historical societies that collapsed due to even mild pressure on the food supply. To which my answer is that this is very unlikely - there will be turmoil, hardship and (some - they aren't going to all die) loss of life in the affected currently-arable areas, but society does not depend on any specific area being viable. The largest societies live nowhere near their source of food. The impact is not the same as the quoted "historical societies" that collapsed when the arable land did, because our societies don't have the dependency of "living on or near arable land". Will there be a negative impact on those people living in and around arable land? Sure. Are they a significant percentage of our societies? Nope. Single-digit percentage of the population is nowhere close enough to cause a societal collapse. All of this to say that, what happened to historical societies happened because those societies were built in, on and around their basic nutrition requirements. Our societies are not.

danaris 9mo ago
You said > some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. and provided no basis for that claim. Not "some other spot may become viable." Not "the amount lost will be minimal." Not "we will be able to get by with less." You made an extremely strong claim, that for every lost place to fish, we will, definitely, necessarily, be granted another. That is what I was responding to. Indeed, I quoted it in my first message here.
- lelanthran 9mo ago
  > You said >> some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. You are correct, I did say that, but that's because the probability of that is so close to 1 that it's not worth splitting hairs about. Can that fail to happen? Sure, but for the planet to heat up even by an exceptionally high 10c and have few places near the average is a vanishingly small possibility, and would almost certianly require a change in the earth's orbit. > and provided no basis for that claim.
  - danaris 9mo ago
    But...that's just a complete non sequitur. The proposition wasn't "all the viable land/fishing spots will be destroyed". No one has been arguing that. It was "when we lose this viable fishing spot, another spot that was not viable will become viable". And there is zero basis for that. So either you have massively failed to state your position clearly, or you are so blatantly moving the goalposts, the dragmarks can be seen from space. Which is it?
    - lelanthran 9mo ago
      > So either you have massively failed to state your position clearly, or you are so blatantly moving the goalposts, the dragmarks can be seen from space. Which is it? Stop with the personal attacks - you are obviously emotional about this, and it's clear I am not. My position is, and always has been, that there is no evidence that modern societies are as dependent on living on, near or around their source of nutrition. Even an extremely high increase, past what all models predict currently, will still leave net than enough arable land on earth to continue sustaining societies. I am arguing that an imbalance wide enough for societal collapse is highly unlikely. My position is absolutely clear, from the very first message in this thread. You have, variously, 1) strawmanned that I argued cosmic balance, 2) shifted the frame of the argument from societal collapse to individual human suffering, 3) Made personal slurs against me rather than my argument, and 4) Point-blank refused to address my argument, restarted here for the third time. These optics are not good. Just to be clear, this is what you are supposed to be arguing against (because this is my point): "Climate change on its own will not be sufficient to cause societal collapse." I cannot see how you have any argument against that, but you have replied so many times that I have to wonder why you are even replying, arguing against an argument that is not being made.
roryirvine 9mo ago
Net land area suitable for arable production may well remain roughly constant, but only over timescales much longer than a human lifespan due to the speed at which ecological succession operates. For instance, when permafrost melts the land left behind is extremely uneven, covered in marshy hollows and collapsing pingos. Where soil exists, it is thin and biologically inert. Primary succession to the point where it is suitable for intensive arable production will take at least a millennium, even if there are no further changes to the climate. Now, it's likely - human ingenuity being what it is - that we'd be able to use that new land for some form of agriculture well before that, perhaps even within a century or two. But if we do, it'll be through something like genetically-engineered moss and sedges, not intensively growing wheat and corn in northern Siberia!

danaris 9mo ago

You said > some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. and provided no basis for that claim. Not "some other spot may become viable." Not "the amount lost will be minimal." Not "we will be able to get by with less." You made an extremely strong claim, that for every lost place to fish, we will, definitely, necessarily, be granted another. That is what I was responding to. Indeed, I quoted it in my first message here.

lelanthran 9mo ago
> You said >> some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. You are correct, I did say that, but that's because the probability of that is so close to 1 that it's not worth splitting hairs about. Can that fail to happen? Sure, but for the planet to heat up even by an exceptionally high 10c and have few places near the average is a vanishingly small possibility, and would almost certianly require a change in the earth's orbit. > and provided no basis for that claim.
- danaris 9mo ago
  But...that's just a complete non sequitur. The proposition wasn't "all the viable land/fishing spots will be destroyed". No one has been arguing that. It was "when we lose this viable fishing spot, another spot that was not viable will become viable". And there is zero basis for that. So either you have massively failed to state your position clearly, or you are so blatantly moving the goalposts, the dragmarks can be seen from space. Which is it?
  - lelanthran 9mo ago
    > So either you have massively failed to state your position clearly, or you are so blatantly moving the goalposts, the dragmarks can be seen from space. Which is it? Stop with the personal attacks - you are obviously emotional about this, and it's clear I am not. My position is, and always has been, that there is no evidence that modern societies are as dependent on living on, near or around their source of nutrition. Even an extremely high increase, past what all models predict currently, will still leave net than enough arable land on earth to continue sustaining societies. I am arguing that an imbalance wide enough for societal collapse is highly unlikely. My position is absolutely clear, from the very first message in this thread. You have, variously, 1) strawmanned that I argued cosmic balance, 2) shifted the frame of the argument from societal collapse to individual human suffering, 3) Made personal slurs against me rather than my argument, and 4) Point-blank refused to address my argument, restarted here for the third time. These optics are not good. Just to be clear, this is what you are supposed to be arguing against (because this is my point): "Climate change on its own will not be sufficient to cause societal collapse." I cannot see how you have any argument against that, but you have replied so many times that I have to wonder why you are even replying, arguing against an argument that is not being made.

roryirvine 9mo ago

Net land area suitable for arable production may well remain roughly constant, but only over timescales much longer than a human lifespan due to the speed at which ecological succession operates. For instance, when permafrost melts the land left behind is extremely uneven, covered in marshy hollows and collapsing pingos. Where soil exists, it is thin and biologically inert. Primary succession to the point where it is suitable for intensive arable production will take at least a millennium, even if there are no further changes to the climate. Now, it's likely - human ingenuity being what it is - that we'd be able to use that new land for some form of agriculture well before that, perhaps even within a century or two. But if we do, it'll be through something like genetically-engineered moss and sedges, not intensively growing wheat and corn in northern Siberia!